What is the point...

[Stewart Holden]

... in Damian Eadie emailing the ABSP asking for us to get more Scrabble players to appear on Countdown, and then putting two of the UK's keenest young players up against the #1 rated player on Apterous?

It has always previously been the case that the best players were spaced a few shows apart (usually 8 or more), presumably in the belief that it was better for the show. Ed Rossiter and Ross Mackenzie are both 160+ rated UK players and the producers would have known that, it seems strange to waste them both on regular shows by putting them against someone who is widely known to be another strong contestant.

Oversight or change of policy?

[Kai Laddiman]

SPOILERZ

[Charlie Reams]

How well did they do at the audition?

[Derek Hazell]

He's already done it to Ross Mackenzie once before, when he put him up against one of the legendary Saldanha brothers in 1998. Maybe he doesn't like the guy?

So . . . are contestants being allowed on more than once now?

Oversight or change of policy?

[David Williams]

... in Damian Eadie emailing the ABSP asking for us to get more Scrabble players to appear on Countdown, and then putting two of the UK's keenest young players up against the #1 rated player on Apterous?

You must have done something to annoy him.

[Ben Hunter]

Damian does what he wants. Like me, babe.

[D Eadie]

Damian does what he wants. Like me, babe.

At last, someone's actually got it, except i didn't and don't put the running order of contestants together, not that i'd have done things any differently anyway.

I don't recall emailing ABSP and stating to them that all those who take part from the Scrabble world will be given some kind of manfactured path into the quarter-finals, i merely asked for participants.

What exactly is your problem Stewart?

They came, they played, they lost. End of story. If people volunteer to come on the show then great, but how they fare beyond the first round of their first game is nothing to do with me.

No oversight, no change of policy either, but perhaps just presumptions and over-expectations on your part.

I seem to remember beating Chris Hawkins and Wayne Kelly on my way to becoming series champ. Both were highly rated Scrabblers, both lost, but on another day both could have kicked my backside, but failed.

The series winner gets the crown on merit, not by design.


Edit to add - I don't post on this forum any more so all of the above isn't actually there.

[Stewart Holden]

You beat Chris Hawkins and Wayne Kelly in the QF and Final, not in ordinary shows, so I'm not sure of the relevance.

I don't really have a problem re Ed and Ross, I just thought it was a strange decision on your part. It's no great secret that you can identify the best players from their auditions and/or what you know about them already and I remember you saying in the past that you would put a few shows in between those promising players' appearances so that they weren't cannibalising each other in the preliminary rounds. If you've changed away from doing that then it probably makes the competition fairer (some would argue the less interference the better), it just might make the overall series standard lower. Your call, of course, I am but a humble lurker

[Kirk Bevins]

I think Damian is trying to say that whether Chris lost to Damian in the QF or lost to him in a prelim he isn't series champion. Yes it would be nice for these people to get teapots and perhaps get another free trip to Leeds by making the QFs but if they want to win the series they have to beat the best.

Also, Imagine you had 8 really good people auditioning - imagine Damian lining them up one after another with no real gaps to almost guarantee them all to be octochamps. I think "normal" people watching would, after watching non-stop amazing Countdown play for 64 days, not bother applying to go on the show as it seems like they're guaranteed to come up against a scrabbler or a boy genius and there is no chance of them playing Ethyl Smith from Doncaster.

[D Eadie]

Sometimes there are 12 - 15 players per series who could (given a nice run), get to become Octochamps. Only 8 make the QF's as you know, so it's inevitable that sometimes, very good players will meet in the heat games.

[Oliver Garner]

SPOILERZ

Which forum is this posted in?

[Kirk Bevins]

Which forum is this posted in?

It *was* posted in the general forum and was moved.

[Oliver Garner]

Also, it can't be good for Chris to beat everyone by 80-90 points every game. If you are a good but not exceptional player and you are drawn against an exceptional player, that's just tough luck.

[JackHurst]

If you are a good but not exceptional player and you are drawn against an exceptional player, that's just tough luck.

I recorded last week and came up against a bloke called Rex Apterous. In all honesty, I expected to become a teapot owner, but I got whooped convincingly on my first go and ran off at the end crying and shouting at the presenters and the staff. Has anyone else heard about those threats Rachel has been getting? I went home and came to realise that just because I'm above average compared to the normal player, it doesn't make me entitled to a teapot. I then converted to scrabble, and I flip the board upside down in anger every time I am behind by more than fifty points. The moral of this story is not to mix countdown and scrabble (Its not really, but i just thought this post was long enough to warrant a made up moral).

[Julie T]

If you are a good but not exceptional player and you are drawn against an exceptional player, that's just tough luck.

I recorded last week and came up against a bloke called Rex Apterous. In all honesty, I expected to become a teapot owner, but I got whooped convincingly on my first go and ran off at the end crying and shouting at the presenters and the staff. Has anyone else heard about those threats Rachel has been getting? I went home and came to realise that just because I'm above average compared to the normal player, it doesn't make me entitled to a teapot. I then converted to scrabble, and I flip the board upside down in anger every time I am behind by more than fifty points. The moral of this story is not to mix countdown and scrabble (Its not really, but i just thought this post was long enough to warrant a made up moral).

I totally get your point, Jack, and very wittily put.

Certainly, being a just above average player myself, if I went on the show, I'd hope to win at least my first game, but wouldn't throw a wobbly if I didn't.

However, Chris and Ross both played an awesome game on Thursday 3rd Sept.
Certainly congratulations to Chris for having the second highest score ever (was Hamish's the highest?).
However, when I played along at home, Ross scored 121/131 to my 78, depending whether he'd've got the conundrum, in my scoring of his 'virtual' game against me.

IMHO he's definitely worthy of a second chance in another series.
But not my decision - I do realise that, Damian, before you bite my head off!

[James Robinson]

Certainly congratulations to Chris for having the second highest score ever (was Hamish's the highest?).

No, Julie. You've got your records slightly in a muddle.

Chris has the second highest score EVER, as you said, beaten only by Julian Fell's 146 in the Series 48 Finals.

Hamish's record was the highest ever DEBUT score in the show's history, when he beat Julie Russell in the last series.

[Michael Wallace]

Hamish's record was the highest ever DEBUT score in the show's history, when he beat Julie Russell in the last series.

s/debut/challenger/, it wasn't his debut.

[James Robinson]

Hamish's record was the highest ever DEBUT score in the show's history, when he beat Julie Russell in the last series.

s/debut/challenger/, it wasn't his debut.

Yeah, I think we all know that, but it didn't stop them saying it though, did it?

[Michael Wallace]

Yeah, I think we all know that, but it didn't stop them saying it though, did it?

Eh, I'm just trying to limit the spread of misinformation.

[Derek Hazell]

They never admit on Countdown when someone has been on before, unless of course it's a special show. Do they?

[Julie T]

Certainly congratulations to Chris for having the second highest score ever (was Hamish's the highest?).

No, Julie. You've got your records slightly in a muddle.

Chris has the second highest score EVER, as you said, beaten only by Julian Fell's 146 in the Series 48 Finals.

Hamish's record was the highest ever DEBUT score in the show's history, when he beat Julie Russell in the last series.

Thanks, James!

[Craig Beevers]

Not to be nasty or anything to the recent contestants, but if you were one of the potential octochamps who were knocked out first up against a top notch opponent you'd be a bit pissed off watching the last few weeks.

[D Eadie]

Arsenal play Liverpool in the Carling Cup 4th Round, while Manchester City entertain Scunthorpe.

Doesn't seem fair, does it.

[Charlie Reams]

Not to be nasty or anything to the recent contestants, but if you were one of the potential octochamps who were knocked out first up against a top notch opponent you'd be a bit pissed off watching the last few weeks.

That's luck of the draw, innit? If you want to improve your odds then practise more and get better.

[Darren Carter]

I think since we have had Hulme, Carson and Davies in such a short space of time and have set such high standards, it feels like recent contestants aren't that great in comparison. Let's not forget that we haven't had a non-apterous player as an octochamp so far this series.

The organisers of the FA Cup don't deliberately seperate all the decent teams so that they don't knock each other out. If it was up to me, I wouldn't even deliberately seperate out extremely good (like the three I have just mentioned) Countdown players. Whether they have been deliberately seperated or not, I don't know for sure - but the way I see it is that to be the best you have to beat the best.

[Kirk Bevins]

but the way I see it is that to be the best you have to beat the best.

This is true, however, there is a prize for runner up. Someone who loses in the final gets £1000. If this same person drew the series winner in the heats they'd go home with just a goody bag, teapotless of course. As Charlie said, it's just luck of the draw.

[D Eadie]

I think since we have had Hulme, Carson and Davies in such a short space of time and have set such high standards, it feels like recent contestants aren't that great in comparison. Let's not forget that we haven't had a non-apterous player as an octochamp so far this series.

The organisers of the FA Cup don't deliberately seperate all the decent teams so that they don't knock each other out. If it was up to me, I wouldn't even deliberately seperate out extremely good (like the three I have just mentioned) Countdown players. Whether they have been deliberately seperated or not, I don't know for sure - but the way I see it is that to be the best you have to beat the best.

The days of non-apterous Octochamps will disappear over time. Countdown's a game after all, and most people play the games they like on the Internet, so it only takes a quick trip to Google to discover Apterous. Now that the Nintendo DS and Wii games are about to hit the shops, it might mean we get a few non-Apterous Octochamps here and there, but by and large you can only practice with DS and Wii as opposed to compete, so i still think the majority of serious players will seek out Apterous for the want of competitive games against human opponents.

If all Apterous players were made to use pseudonyms then we'd have no way of knowing who was who, which is something i'd personally prefer.

[Charlie Reams]

The organisers of the FA Cup don't deliberately seperate all the decent teams so that they don't knock each other out.

If you lose in the FA Cup, you can try again next year.

If all Apterous players were made to use pseudonyms then we'd have no way of knowing who was who, which is something i'd personally prefer.

How would you make someone use a pseudonym?

[Kirk Bevins]

If all Apterous players were made to use pseudonyms then we'd have no way of knowing who was who, which is something i'd personally prefer.

I don't think I'd prefer this. I think it's good I can keep my eye on who is practising and what their practice habits and weaknesses are - it brings more tactics to the game.

[D Eadie]

If all Apterous players were made to use pseudonyms then we'd have no way of knowing who was who, which is something i'd personally prefer.

I don't think I'd prefer this. I think it's good I can keep my eye on who is practising and what their practice habits and weaknesses are - it brings more tactics to the game.

You could still do all this Kirk, they just wouldnt be using their real name, it wouldnt affect the Apterous playing experience at all.

And how do you make someone use a pseudonym - hmm, you can't really now, it's too far down the line. Maybe we'll make our contestants use them instead, it could be an interesting talking point, having a new challenger called Randy Big Bollocks.

[Sue Sanders]

If all Apterous players were made to use pseudonyms then we'd have no way of knowing who was who, which is something i'd personally prefer.

I don't think I'd prefer this. I think it's good I can keep my eye on who is practising and what their practice habits and weaknesses are - it brings more tactics to the game.

You could still do all this Kirk, they just wouldnt be using their real name, it wouldnt affect the Apterous playing experience at all.

And how do you make someone use a pseudonym - hmm, you can't really now, it's too far down the line. Maybe we'll make our contestants use them instead, it could be an interesting talking point, having a new challenger called Randy Big Bollocks.

Randy Big Bollocks eh? I was made to change my top because - good grief - I have a cleavage!

[Gavin Chipper]

If all Apterous players were made to use pseudonyms then we'd have no way of knowing who was who, which is something i'd personally prefer.

Really?

[Gavin Chipper]

but the way I see it is that to be the best you have to beat the best.

This is true, however, there is a prize for runner up. Someone who loses in the final gets £1000. If this same person drew the series winner in the heats they'd go home with just a goody bag, teapotless of course. As Charlie said, it's just luck of the draw.

And the fact that it's better for the viewers to have the top players meeting towards the end rather than in the heats. The prizes are a minor consideration.

Edit - I think this might be the 11,111th post in the spoilers forum. It makes me so proud.

[Craig Beevers]

If potential octochamps are kept apart the luck of the draw argument doesn't really hold.

Going by the Countdown database (obviously it's not totally up to date) the last contestant to score a century is still Chris Davies. This gives you an idea of how much the standard has dropped off, yet there were still a handful of pretty reasonable players like Ed Rossiter lined up to meet the three best octochamps of the series (so far).

[Charlie Reams]

If potential octochamps are kept apart the luck of the draw argument doesn't really hold.

Good players have probably invested a lot of time in getting that good, so you can see why it's sensible not to waste their talents. Not-so-good players are easier to come by so they have to take their chances.

[Clive Brooker]

Gavin, I seem to remember that ages ago you posted an alternative method for organising a Countdown series, in which good players wouldn't be sunk for ever simply through being allocated an unfortunate slot. IIRC the scheme also retained the concept of an Octochamp, but there my memory ends.

Personally I hate the existing system, and suspect that for many people it is a strong disincentive to applying.

[Kirk Bevins]

Personally I hate the existing system, and suspect that for many people it is a strong disincentive to applying.

I know one lady who said she always wanted to go on Countdown and I said just go for it it's great fun but she is holding back as she said she'll probably get drawn against an awesome player and lose her first game. I said that's the same with everyone - it's luck of the draw. The only way that won't happen is if you practise so hard that you're the best ever, otherwise everybody has a chance of being pitted against someone really good. I told her about apterous and c4c although she still hasn't signed up and I also said that series 61 will be tough but after that I don't know who's applying. She still has this fear that she'll lose her first game but unless the system is fixed and she's paired up with a champion who is also shit then she won't be happy. Not sure what to suggest really.

[David Williams]

What Countdown needs is a couple of hundred competent contestants a year. Pay them minimal expenses, give them a good day out and be nice to them (civility costs nothing) and send them on their way with a goody bag which costs virtually nothing. That's what the production team are paid to do.

If you felt the success of apterous players was discouraging other decent players from applying and you were really devious, there are a couple of things you might do. One is making sure that the best players are not evenly spread through the series, improving the chances of the average player. Another is to find a way to disguise the fact that series are dominated by apterous players, perhaps by getting them to play under pseudonyms.

The fact that Damian posts here demonstrates to me that it's more than just a job to him, he does care about the issues that matter to us. But he's paid to take a wider perspective.

[D Eadie]

Spot on David.
Some people overlook that it's a television programme we're making.
A final featuring the 2 very best players of the series is what everybody really wants.
When all is said and done, each players gets the same letters to play with, same numbers and same conundrum, and the scores start off at 0-0. If you lose, you lose. 80% of contesants lose their first and only game. What are we meant to do about it?

[Charlie Reams]

Some people overlook that it's a television programme we're making.

You are?!

Srsly though, I don't think anyone is accusing you of doing anything wrong.

[David Williams]

I don't think anyone is accusing you of doing anything wrong.

I think they are, and if it was the FA Cup, a competition run by an organisation formed by the contestants, I'd agree with them. In fact, from the selfish point of view of someone who watches purely for the game itself, I do agree with them. But if I were in Damian's position, that would cut very little ice. Some people choose to attribute undue importance to Countdown, and invest inordinate amounts of time in preparing for it. I'm sure the production team are very grateful, but that's as far as it goes.

[D Eadie]

I don't think anyone is accusing you of doing anything wrong.

I think they are, and if it was the FA Cup, a competition run by an organisation formed by the contestants, I'd agree with them. In fact, from the selfish point of view of someone who watches purely for the game itself, I do agree with them. But if I were in Damian's position, that would cut very little ice. Some people choose to attribute undue importance to Countdown, and invest inordinate amounts of time in preparing for it. I'm sure the production team are very grateful, but that's as far as it goes.

I don't feel as though we're being accused of doing things wrong. All i know is that it's impossible to please everyone, i did spend many years trying, but eventually you give up and do what you believe in. No matter what you do, it'll be criticised in some quarters. I personally don't think there is a problem in keeping the outstanding players apart from each other. By and large, there are maybe 2 or 3 really significantly outstanding players a series, if that. Would be madness to put them on against each other in the early stages. I don't have a crystal ball as to who would beat who, just a good idea with some of the players. Somebody had to play Chris, Andrew and Innis.

I think if you ask Jeffrey Burgin or Steve Wood, they'd be very happy with the way things are, because they've got into the quarters and perhaps would not have done had they come up against the aforementioned gents on their first game. The better the finals, the better the audience, the happier C4 are, the more likely we are to be recommisioned.

England had Croatia, Ukraine, Belarus and some other rubbish in their World Cup group. Imagine the uproar if FIFA put us with France, Portugal, Holland and Italy instead. Who'd be watching in South Africa next June?

[Gavin Chipper]

Gavin, I seem to remember that ages ago you posted an alternative method for organising a Countdown series, in which good players wouldn't be sunk for ever simply through being allocated an unfortunate slot. IIRC the scheme also retained the concept of an Octochamp, but there my memory ends.

Personally I hate the existing system, and suspect that for many people it is a strong disincentive to applying.

If it's the idea I think you are talking about, it took a lot of games to get through the contestants. Was it this? I'm not sure what I think of it now though. You can't get enough players on the show with it.

[Clive Brooker]

Gavin, I seem to remember that ages ago you posted an alternative method for organising a Countdown series, in which good players wouldn't be sunk for ever simply through being allocated an unfortunate slot. IIRC the scheme also retained the concept of an Octochamp, but there my memory ends.

Personally I hate the existing system, and suspect that for many people it is a strong disincentive to applying.

If it's the idea I think you are talking about, it took a lot of games to get through the contestants. Was it this? I'm not sure what I think of it now though. You can't get enough players on the show with it.

Yes, thank you, that's the one. I thought that recalling it here might stir things up a bit, but it didn't really work.

As a much simpler idea, for a long time I hoped to see a series set aside for unlucky losers. I suspect that such a series would, by some margin, be the strongest ever in terms of depth of ability.

Just a dream.

[D Eadie]

There is no such thing as an unlucky loser. By definition, they are just losers.
A series of losers?
Isn't that called the X Factor?

[Clive Brooker]

80% of contesants lose their first and only game.

Since the start of the 15 round format, 69.7%

Unsurprisingly the proportion was highest (78.2%) in series 47, and lowest (59.3%) in series 49.

[James Robinson]

A series of losers? Isn't that called the X Factor?

Yes, definitely it is.

[Jeffrey Burgin]

I think people are overstating the assumption that viewers want to watch top-quality players- yes, it's all very interesting to watch the big guns produce obscure 8s and what not, but I should imagine the majority of viewers just watch to play the letters and numbers rounds and aren't watching specifically because of the standard of the players. Sure, people on here will watch whenever the likes of Davies, Carson or Hulme are on because you have a greater interest in the standard of play, but I doubt many others of the viewing audience do.

As I said a long time ago as well, I also fail to see how you can say to one person "Sorry fella, luck of the draw" whilst intentionally keeping high-class players apart. It's not something I particularly disagree with, if the producers know that there's an upsurge in interest that accompanies a high-quality player being on then fair enough- ultimately it is an entertainment show they are producing- but as I said I doubt there is any correlation between the two.

[Michael Wallace]

I think people are overstating the assumption that viewers want to watch top-quality players- yes, it's all very interesting to watch the big guns produce obscure 8s and what not, but I should imagine the majority of viewers just watch to play the letters and numbers rounds and aren't watching specifically because of the standard of the players.

I always presumed the point was that you want your finals to be as exciting as possible - whilst you might say most casual viewers don't pay that much attention, I think a lot will realise when it's the final(s), and it makes better TV (imo) if your finals are "omg these guys are so amazing" and closely fought, rather than the best guy from the heats thrashing someone who lucked their way through.

Not sure about people having an interest in good players during the series though - I wouldn't be surprised if it adds a little bit of flavour (and I think I remember my grandmother commenting about one guy being on who was particularly good, so people do notice).

[Kirk Bevins]

Not sure about people having an interest in good players during the series though - I wouldn't be surprised if it adds a little bit of flavour (and I think I remember my grandmother commenting about one guy being on who was particularly good, so people do notice).

They do notice. I've been recognised several times out and about, including in Blackpool last week. I got talking to a couple about the high standard (Davies, Carson, Hulme etc) and asked whether they thought it was good or do they hate it because they get beat at home all the time but they said no they enjoy people coming out with obscure words, including myself, as they're not quite sure what we're going to offer next.

On the other side of the coin me and Chris (particularly) had abuse off some players for offering the most obscure word when a simple one will do but a lot of people like this as described above - it's more entertaining. You can't please everyone.

[Craig Beevers]

I always presumed the point was that you want your finals to be as exciting as possible - whilst you might say most casual viewers don't pay that much attention, I think a lot will realise when it's the final(s), and it makes better TV (imo) if your finals are "omg these guys are so amazing" and closely fought, rather than the best guy from the heats thrashing someone who lucked their way through.

Yep, that's my main reservation with what's happened in this series. The top 3 are through as expected, probably the next best few (from what I've seen) were lined up to play them or did play them.

Obviously it'll be difficult to judge with total accuracy from the auditions, but I feel like you'd rather have the sort of next tier of player kept away from the top 3 just to ensure you've got a bit more quality in the finals. I could see the QFs being rather one-sided as things stand.

[Kirk Bevins]

Obviously it'll be difficult to judge with total accuracy from the auditions, but I feel like you'd rather have the sort of next tier of player kept away from the top 3 just to ensure you've got a bit more quality in the finals. I could see the QFs being rather one-sided as things stand.

I don't understand your point Craig. What do you want? To line up octochamp after octochamp so that by the end of the series you have 8 octochamps and then one more octochamp comes along and doesn't make the finals? Or is to separate all the good players out so that you have a lot of octochamps after each other and people watching at home think "oh my, I'm not applying for Countdown, it's almost guaranteed that I'm going to come up against a genius". With some standard play like now it gives potential contestants an incentive to apply.

[D Eadie]

Yep, that's my main reservation with what's happened in this series. The top 3 are through as expected, probably the next best few (from what I've seen) were lined up to play them or did play them.

Obviously it'll be difficult to judge with total accuracy from the auditions, but I feel like you'd rather have the sort of next tier of player kept away from the top 3 just to ensure you've got a bit more quality in the finals. I could see the QFs being rather one-sided as things stand.

It's impossible to judge from auditions who is in any 'next tier'. There are really only 2 tiers. Those who blow the whole thing away (about 2%) and those who are good enough to pass and do so (about 98%). Because some of the 98% play the 2%, i'm supposed to consider this a problem?

If the 2% play each other in the heats, then you will prob just get 1 of them into the finals and 7 from the 98%. The 1 player from the 2% will probably still win the series, but the finals won't be as good to watch and the final itself could be a thrashing.

Not sure how the QF's can be labelled 'one-sided' when there are 8 people taking part and even the shrewdest of gamblers wouldn't risk any large amounts on any particular player this time round.

Ask 100 people who would win your series, 99% would say Craig Beevers. You won't get that level of dominance in this series. In fact, i think Innis, Andrew, Chris, Jeffrey, Steve etc ALL probably think they won't win the final, whereas you probably realised you would.

[Craig Beevers]

Obviously it'll be difficult to judge with total accuracy from the auditions, but I feel like you'd rather have the sort of next tier of player kept away from the top 3 just to ensure you've got a bit more quality in the finals. I could see the QFs being rather one-sided as things stand.

I don't understand your point Craig. What do you want? To line up octochamp after octochamp so that by the end of the series you have 8 octochamps and then one more octochamp comes along and doesn't make the finals? Or is to separate all the good players out so that you have a lot of octochamps after each other and people watching at home think "oh my, I'm not applying for Countdown, it's almost guaranteed that I'm going to come up against a genius". With some standard play like now it gives potential contestants an incentive to apply.

Err no. The players who are the next step down from Innis/Hulme/Davies shouldn't be lined up to play those three in the heats. Simple. After that it's good that things are a bit random because it means you get a good mix of games, the FA Cup elements, but you should still have a pretty good lineup for the finals.

[D Eadie]

Err no. The players who are the next step down from Innis/Hulme/Davies shouldn't be lined up to play those three in the heats. Simple. After that it's good that things are a bit random because it means you get a good mix of games, the FA Cup elements, but you should still have a pretty good lineup for the finals.

There is no next step down. You might be referring to Scrabble buddies Ed Rossiter and Ross Mckenzie i suspect. Ed Rossiter beat a 5-time winner Paul Varlaam in his first game, then won his second game by just 16 pts, then another game by 12pts, then lost to Chris Davies by 27 in an extremely close game. What tier was Ed in?

Ross McKenzie then lost to Chris Davies by 50 pts in another closely fought game. I presume you have him in this 2nd tier also? If Ed Rossiter had beaten Chris, he'd have come up against Ross McKenzie had he kept on winning, then you'd probably argue that two players in the 'second tier' shouldn't meet each other.

I remember a few weeks ago someone suggested that Octochamps were given an easy run to get to the Finals and now it's turned completely upside down.

I just smile and have a biscuit.

[Kirk Bevins]

Err no. The players who are the next step down from Innis/Hulme/Davies shouldn't be lined up to play those three in the heats. Simple.

Yes. This is what I mean. You can't just line people up so you get an endless stream of octochamps.

[Craig Beevers]

Yep, that's my main reservation with what's happened in this series. The top 3 are through as expected, probably the next best few (from what I've seen) were lined up to play them or did play them.

Obviously it'll be difficult to judge with total accuracy from the auditions, but I feel like you'd rather have the sort of next tier of player kept away from the top 3 just to ensure you've got a bit more quality in the finals. I could see the QFs being rather one-sided as things stand.

It's impossible to judge from auditions who is in any 'next tier'. There are really only 2 tiers. Those who blow the whole thing away (about 2%) and those who are good enough to pass and do so (about 98%). Because some of the 98% play the 2%, i'm supposed to consider this a problem?

If the 2% play each other in the heats, then you will prob just get 1 of them into the finals and 7 from the 98%. The 1 player from the 2% will probably still win the series, but the finals won't be as good to watch and the final itself could be a thrashing.

Not sure how the QF's can be labelled 'one-sided' when there are 8 people taking part and even the shrewdest of gamblers wouldn't risk any large amounts on any particular player this time round.

Ask 100 people who would win your series, 99% would say Craig Beevers. You won't get that level of dominance in this series. In fact, i think Innis, Andrew, Chris, Jeffrey, Steve etc ALL probably think they won't win the final, whereas you probably realised you would.

I'm meant the QFs specifically.

Innis, Andrew and Chris will probably play Paul/Bob/Jeffrey/Steve (and whoever else). So you've basically got 900+ octochamp calibre players against players who scraped wins whilst averaging 85-90. I don't see the first three QFs being anything but one-sided. Obviously those top 3 are highly likely to win whoever the 6/7/8 seeds are, but you'd still want a better chance of competitive games.

[Kirk Bevins]

Innis, Andrew and Chris will probably play Paul/Bob/Jeffrey/Steve (and whoever else). So you've basically got 900+ octochamp calibre players against players who scraped wins whilst averaging 85-90. I don't see the first three QFs being anything but one-sided. Obviously those top 3 are highly likely to win whoever the 6/7/8 seeds are, but you'd still want a better chance of competitive games.

And how are you going to get better competitive QFs? Either have 8 super competitors or 8 mediocre players. If you have 1, 2 or 3 super players in a series (which is common) you're always going to have one sided QFs (although odd things can happen - my 115-90 win was a close game in my QF when people expected me to trounce Julie).

[Craig Beevers]

Err no. The players who are the next step down from Innis/Hulme/Davies shouldn't be lined up to play those three in the heats. Simple.

Yes. This is what I mean. You can't just line people up so you get an endless stream of octochamps.

No because they're not lined up beyond the avoidance of the top 3. Using names given above Ed and Ross could end up playing each other for instance. There will still be strings of tougher and easier games. The luck of the draw is still mostly there.

[Kirk Bevins]

No because they're not lined up beyond the avoidance of the top 3. Using names given above Ed and Ross could end up playing each other for instance. There will still be strings of tougher and easier games. The luck of the draw is still mostly there.

I have no idea what you're suggesting now, Craig. On one hand you don't want say Ed to play Chris but on the other hand you'll allow Ed to play Ross. Doesn't make sense. You either keep them all separate (which I've discussed is bad) or mix them up a bit (which is what Damian does at the moment).